5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Sieradz.
6.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on charges of rape. He was transported to the Łuków Police Station and detained for 48 hours. His detention was subsequently prolonged for a further 24 hours. Upon his arrival the applicant was examined by a doctor, Z.M., who found only slight superficial scratches, at least some of which could have been caused by a struggle with another person. In addition, these scratches must have occurred several hours earlier.
7.  According to the applicant the police officers abused him verbally when interrogating him and punched him in the stomach, chest, shoulders, face and arms. The Government did not respond to these allegations.
8.  On 19 September 2001 the applicant was brought to the prosecutor’s office by two policemen, M.M and T.K. He was then questioned by the prosecutor. According to the applicant, he reported the alleged ill-treatment. The Government submitted that during the interview the prosecutor and the applicant were alone in the room. There was no note of the applicant’s complaint in the minutes of the interrogation.
9.  On the evening of the same day the applicant felt weak and complained of stomach pain. At the applicant’s request, the police officer on duty called an ambulance. On arrival, the doctor, M.A., administered a painkiller to the applicant. She noted that the applicant had a small (2‑3 cm) bruise on his chest. He also complained about pain in his chest, ribs and stomach.
10.  On 21 September 2001 the applicant was brought before the Łuków District Court. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. According to the applicant, he again complained about the alleged ill‑treatment. However, there is no note of the complaint in the minutes of the hearing.
11.  On the same date M.M., a police officer from the Łuków Police Station, drew up an official report. The report reads as follows:
“On 18 September 2001 J.P. [the applicant] was arrested in Celiny Szlacheckie, Stanin commune, on charges of raping E.C. On his arrest he was examined by a surgeon, Z.M., who did not observe any marks on his body apart from scratches on his neck and the upper part of his chest.
On 19 September 2001 J.P was interrogated by the Łuków District Prosecutor. On the evening of that day he informed the police officer on duty in the Łuków Police Station, that he had been beaten by police officers. At his request the officer on duty called an ambulance and [he] was examined by a doctor.
Today, during the Łuków District Court’s hearing regarding his detention, J.P. complained that he had been beaten by police officers while being questioned”.
12.  Later that day the applicant was admitted to the Siedlce Detention Centre. On arrival the applicant had visible injuries, and was asked to explain their origin. He made a written note and stated that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment at the police station. He noted that the police officers had ordered him to keep his arms above his head and when his arms began to shake they had hit him and told him that they “would treat his neurosis”. Lastly, he stressed that he would be able to recognise the officers in question.
13.  On 24 September 2001 he was examined by a doctor, P.S. In so far as relevant, the doctor’s report read:
“Haematomas and bruises on both arms. Movement preserved. Haematomas and bruises on the left ribs. Bruises without oedema on the right eyelid. No changes to the eyeball.”
14.  On 4 October 2001, as a result of the applicant’s complaint in the Sieldce Detention Centre, the Police commandant of the Łuków District initiated an internal investigation.
15.  On 19 October 2001 T.Z., head of the criminal section of the Łuków police, was heard. He confirmed that he had been informed of the applicant’s allegations and had seen the applicant’s bruises.
16.  On 30 October 2001 the prosecutor maintained that he had not seen any visible injuries on the applicant and the applicant had not complained about ill-treatment during the interview on 19 September 2001.
17.  The internal investigation was discontinued on 5 November 2001 on the ground that the applicant was unable to identify the perpetrators.
18.  On 8 October 2002, during the hearing held in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, he testified that he had been beaten by police officers on 19 September 2001 following the interrogation at the prosecutor’s office.
19.  On 12 November 2002 the Łuków District Court convicted the applicant of rape. The judgment was upheld on appeal on a later unknown date.
20.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Łuków District Prosecutor about the actions taken by the police.
21.  On 17 February 2003 the prosecutor instituted an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.
22.  On 12 March 2003 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations. The prosecutor held that, according to the information in the case file, the applicant had not been interrogated by police officers. In addition, the applicant himself agreed that the scratch marks on his arms, neck and chest had occurred when he had cut down bushes on his land. Furthermore, it did not appear from the doctors’ reports (including the report drawn up by the doctor in the Siedlce detention centre) that the applicant had been beaten. The prosecutor heard evidence from four police officers. They testified that they had not noticed whether the applicant had any abrasions. They also could not have ill‑treated the applicant because they had never interrogated him. The prosecutor heard evidence from M.A – the doctor who had examined the applicant on 19 September 2001. She testified that she did not remember whether the applicant had any abrasions or injuries. She had only prescribed tranquillizers, as the applicant was suffering from neuralgia. The prosecutor stressed that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had been beaten up by the police.
23.  The applicant appealed against this decision. On an unknown date the Regional Prosecutor upheld the first‑instance decision. The applicant filed an appeal with the Łuków District Court.
24.  On 13 May 2003 the court refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers allegedly involved in the incident. The court held that there was no evidence that the applicant had been beaten by the police. In addition, the applicant had reported the alleged ill‑treatment for the first time only on 8 October 2002, when he testified before the Łuków District Court. Until that date he had never raised this issue, nor had he complained to the prosecution authorities. He had further filed an official notification of the commission of a crime on 16 December 2002.
25.  On 21 August 2006 the applicant lodged a motion for the reopening of the proceedings concerning ill-treatment. He argued that additional documents should be considered in the proceedings, namely M.M.’s report of 21 September 2001 and his medical files from the Siedlce detention centre.
26.  On 6 December 2006 the prosecutor reopened the proceedings.
27.  On 7 March 2007 the prosecutor heard evidence from the doctor P.S., who had examined the applicant in the detention centre. The doctor considered that the applicant’s bruises had been unexceptional and could have occurred 3 to 5 days before the examination. In addition they could have been caused by squeezing or pushing away. The doctor stressed that had the applicant complained of ill-treatment he would have noted it in his medical records.
28.  On 23 March 2007 the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings. He considered that the applicant had constantly changed his version of facts and that there had been no witnesses who could have described the situation. In addition, there was no medical evidence that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment and, lastly, there was a high probability that the injuries had occurred in the course of the [rape] victim’s self-defence. The prosecutor concluded that it was not possible to establish beyond doubt the factual circumstances in which the injuries had occurred.
29.  It would appear that the applicant failed to appeal against this decision.